Ukip

Common sense, it's what I'd like to see from any party, simpler & more exact laws and uniform approach to guidance with exceptions assessed on their merit and handguns once again allowed in some form for sporting purposes, if I want something & can show a need/use for it that should be sufficient not be subject to flo or managers personal views (not that I ever have all bar 1 of those I've encountered have been A1 ) or have silly invented conditions it should be one thing across the country!
 
I think a simple realization and acceptance that shooting is safe would create a foundation upon which further legislation could be built - at present government policy seems to be based upon the concept that shooting is highly dangerous and unsafe and this drives the direction of the legislation.

As some may recall there was a debate on here a while back about the need for more training and restrictions. I did a FOI request to SNH for details of accidental shootings of members of the public while stalking and instances of food poisoning from venison and they had zero on record. So although they were calling for more training and restrictions there was no evidence of any problem and this call was based on a "group think" position that shooting must be viewed as unsafe, which is simply not supported by the evidence.
 
Common sense, it's what I'd like to see from any party, simpler & more exact laws and uniform approach to guidance with exceptions assessed on their merit and handguns once again allowed in some form for sporting purposes, if I want something & can show a need/use for it that should be sufficient not be subject to flo or managers personal views (not that I ever have all bar 1 of those I've encountered have been A1 ) or have silly invented conditions it should be one thing across the country!
+1 Well said. atb Tim :thumb:
 
Fundamentally I don't care how tight the background checks are but a lot of the restrictions on types of firearm are not logical.

How can anyone with a Deer rifle/ Sniper rifle not be trusted with a .22 target/ dispatch pistol?

 
I would wish them never to be elected to anything where their views on gun control or anything else for that matter is of any importance or relevance to anyone. Unfortunately I do not think my wish will come true :(
 
What would the shooting community expect and wish for from UKIP on Gun Control issues ?

On the whole, I would prefer it if shooting sports were not politicised.
That said, each party (as well as each elected representative) will take a view.
Given UKIP's core purpose, and given the relative status of shooting wild animals in the UK and rest of the EU, without having read any of UKIP's policies on the issue, it would seem that a more European approach to shooting would be of benefit to UK shooters. Of course, as I said, I haven't read UKIP's policies on this issue, so perhaps (albeit somewhat perversely) that is what they advocate.

To be fair, OP is talking about "gun control" related to but not necessarily the same as "shooting sports" which is what most of the rest of us I guess are primarily interested in.

I, for example, would not like to see the return of handgun ownership for "self defence".

I would also not wish UKIP or any other party, to attack the European agreements which facilitate shooting throughout the EU/EEA.
 
From what I've heard & seen Farrage has very liberal views on gun control/laws having once said that" an increase in gun ownership is shown to bring a reduction in crime" or something like it using information supplied by some gun ownership lobby.
 
Hand gun ownership given back to what are the most law abiding citizens In the country(us). Would show a level of trust and respect given back to a minority group(FAC holders) that did nothing wrong in the first place!
Even if it was a 22 to sart with!

Gun ownership is on the increase in this country. So is the granting of FAC's surly it is time to start looking at this again!
 
My personal view is UKIP don't even know how to sit on a toilet the right way round so letting them make decisions about our sport's future whether more liberal or strict is a recipe for disaster!
 
simple , license the individual , once you are considered fit to posess firearms then what you posess within reason shouldn't matter.
 
simple , license the individual , once you are considered fit to possess firearms then what you possess within reason shouldn't matter.

Hear Hear ,it's individuals that determine the use of objects as weapons ,once confirmed as suitable ,restrictions on numbers and types should be minimal.Anything can be a weapon ,golf CLUBS for instance, I mean a club is a weapon for clubbing something /someone causing death or injury ! Should clubs be licensed ,they are weapons?

:old:
 
I disagree.

A golf club cant take someone head off at 600 yards.

I think it should work like this. Lets say you apply for a .308 and it is granted.

This then permits you to buy any calibre under .308 up to a max of 3 guns (you can apply for more if you want)

We don't need a bunch of people hunting 50 acres with .50 cals.
 
I disagree.

A golf club cant take someone head off at 600 yards.

I think it should work like this. Lets say you apply for a .308 and it is granted.

This then permits you to buy any calibre under .308 up to a max of 3 guns (you can apply for more if you want)

We don't need a bunch of people hunting 50 acres with .50 cals.

can we also change them without all the rigmarole we currently have ?
 
I disagree.

A golf club cant take someone head off at 600 yards.

I think it should work like this. Lets say you apply for a .308 and it is granted.




This then permits you to buy any calibre under .308 up to a max of 3 guns (you can apply for more if you want)

We don't need a bunch of people hunting 50 acres with .50 cals.

A maniac with a golf club could some serious damage in a classroom of small children .The ,thankfully, small numbers of outrages have all been up close and very personal with only a very few "sniper" shooting and this only abroad.
The problem is with peoples' attitude to gun ownership in general be it rifle shotgun or pistol , we as a group have been denigrated by the press with the help of the police
( think cover-up ) and used by sleazy politicians to their advantage ,the results of which can be shown by the last , grossly incompetent , government.
We ,as shooters , have to be on our collective toes at all times and meanwhile think of others who might shoot different disciplines ,be it target or hunting.
Common sense would keep .50 cals where they should be ,that is ,on approved SAFE ranges of which sadly there aren't many. We shooters are mostly blessed with more common sense re. fireams use than almost all others in the UK ,politicians especially and a lot of politically motivated senior police officers ,who ,despite rules to the contrary , involve themselves in politics under the auspices of ACPO and others.
We should stick together as a group and hope that more enlightened political groups / parties emerge with honest ,down to earth thinking who wil cut the ******** out of government and reign in the excesses of crooked sleazy grabbing MPs who seem to be the norm nowadays .

Rant over
Be good.

:old:
 
I disagree.

A golf club cant take someone head off at 600 yards.

I think it should work like this. Lets say you apply for a .308 and it is granted.

This then permits you to buy any calibre under .308 up to a max of 3 guns (you can apply for more if you want)

We don't need a bunch of people hunting 50 acres with .50 cals.

Why put a restriction on maximum amount of rifles at 3 but you can apply for more if you want. That statement does not make sense. The way it reads to me is if you apply for more than 3 you will not be granted them. I allready have more than 3. Does that mean i would have to give some up. I thought we were after restrictions being lifted. As for the 50 cal what is wrong with people having 50 cal rifles if they go big game hunting and want that calibre.

Jimbo
 
Back
Top